Discussion Title: Universities Should Divest from Fossil Fuels

1. Universities Should Divest from Fossil Fuels.
1.1. Con: Universities in the past have found it [difficult](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) to go green with their policies.
1.1.1. Pro: [People & Planet table](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-leaguehttps://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) has revealed that 75% of campuses are set to miss carbon targets.
1.1.2. Pro: It is the [fourth year that the league](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league), ranking institutions by environmental and ethical performance, has recorded fewer universities on course to meet their legally binding target of reducing emissions by 43% from 2005 levels by 2020.
1.1.3. Con: Alternatively, many universities have managed to reach milestones in their pursuit of a greener campus.
1.1.3.1. Pro: [Not all have abandoned their green goals](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league). A “first class” status being awarded to 30 of the 150 universities.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: This year [Nottingham Trent University](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) opened the Pavilion, its first carbon negative building.
1.1.3.1.2. Pro: [Brighton University](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) has made sustainability one of its four core values.
1.1.3.1.2.1. Pro: The [University of Brighton](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) has managed to reduce its carbon footprint despite expanding in size and opening its buildings for longer hours.
1.1.3.1.3. Pro: The [University of Warwick](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/nov/22/universities-green-goals-environmental-targets-people-planet-league) is launching a unique BASc cross-disciplinary degree in global sustainable development.
1.1.4. Pro: Switching to a greener campus can be expensive.
1.1.4.1. Pro: For example, the switch to solar power will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities.
1.1.4.1.1. Pro: The [cost reductions](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html) in energy savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion costs.
1.1.4.1.1.1. Con: In some locations [tax benefits](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html) are provided that can help companies offset the costs of making the switch.
1.1.4.2. Pro: Even switching [energy suppliers](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html) such as purchasing wind-power electricity rather than conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant can mean paying a premium price for the green energy source.
1.2. Con: Fossil fuels are a critical component of where we get our energy. Divestment is premature until other energy sources can take its place.
1.2.1. Con: Parallel with a phased divestment from fossil fuels universities can tap into the wealth of brain power available to them by way of their student population and produce viable and sustainable alternative energy sources.
1.2.1.1. Pro: As issues of climate change loom, implementing [green solutions](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) into buildings, particularly on college campuses, is an effective strategy for increasing the lifespan of buildings and outdoor spaces.
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: By using [sustainable elements](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) to spark creativity inside and outside the classroom, universities can influence how students learn and teachers teach while decreasing the institution’s negative impact on the environment.
1.2.1.1.2. Pro: A more [environmentally focused campus](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) ensures stimulation for its student body from an intellectual, social, and civil perspective.
1.2.1.1.3. Pro: Universities are moving toward [a sustainable design](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) for their campuses as it is a better choice from a long-term operational perspective.
1.2.1.1.4. Pro: As a result, [typical approaches to university design](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) will already lean toward sustainable practices when it comes to planning parking and bicycle and pedestrian access.
1.2.1.1.5. Pro: Universities already seek out [durable materials](https://www.facilitiesnet.com/educationalfacilities/article/Go-Green-Why-Universities-Are-Prizing-Sustainability--18488) that are designed to stand the test of time as well as high-traffic use. Sustainable elements that are just now entering the consciousness of other companies and organizations are already the norm for institutions of higher education.
1.3. Pro: Students are likelier to adapt a green lifestyle if the universities they graduated from followed environmentally friendly policies.
1.3.1. Pro: Students become used to [environments](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/green-university-important) that are greener.
1.3.1.1. Pro: For [instance](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/green-university-important) some students have stated that their friends and they go to the cities and go to any establishment, they always prefer places that have a compost.
1.3.1.2. Pro: [Students](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/green-university-important) have also stated that they are likely to settle into a place that they will for sure has composting and recycling.
1.3.1.2.1. Con: This may just be because [a lot of the students](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/green-university-important) that go to these universities are already very environmentally conscious and that is one of the reasons they chose to go to these universities.
1.3.2. Pro: A [study](https://collegepuzzle.stanford.edu/college-habits-do-we-carry-them-through-life/) has found that students internalize many habits \(even ones that are to their detriment\) while in college. It stands to reason that they would internalize a green lifestyle if the university was to implement it.
1.3.3. Con: A [study](http:///blog/school-thought/201502/study-finds-habits-in-children-take-root-age-9) concluded that routines and habits in children, including household chores and responsibilities, are unlikely to vary after the age of 9. Universities are unlikely to change the habits of students.
1.3.3.1. Pro: For example, a [study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3365855/) found that religious beliefs for college-attending individuals did not change at a more significant rate than non-college-attending individuals. This indicates that the impact a university has on a person is limited.
1.3.4. Con: Universities tend to have a multiplicity of social worlds. Students can find like-minded social networks and continue to adhere to what they believe in, making any changes in official policy redundant.
1.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.1.
1.4. Pro: A greener campus can be beneficial for students.
1.4.1. Pro: [Green colleges](https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/green-guide/sustainable-campus-quality-life) make a point to account for sustainable living when designing and operating their buildings.
1.4.1.1. Pro: For these colleges, many of the facilities incorporate natural lighting, improve air quality, and reduce energy and water use.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: This also manages to make students more responsible citizens.
1.4.2. Pro: [Eco-friendly colleges](https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/green-guide/sustainable-campus-quality-life) believe that food tastes better when it's local and organic.
1.4.2.1. Pro: These colleges forego long distance, low-grade cafeteria food and offer their students fresh and local cuisine, from campus farms or markets, whenever possible.
1.4.3. Pro: Green campuses offer [easy commute options](https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/green-guide/sustainable-campus-quality-life) for students.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Others offer [transport](https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/green-guide/sustainable-campus-quality-life) via campus shuttle, or offer a myriad of other transportation options, from free bus passes to car-share programs.
1.4.3.2. Pro: [Some of these schools](https://www.princetonreview.com/college-advice/green-guide/sustainable-campus-quality-life) have a thriving bike cultures.
1.5. Pro: Divesting from fossil fuels can help universities as well.
1.5.1. Pro: Being seen as [a leader in sustainablity](https://grist.org/article/green-u/) is useful in attracting students, funding, and media attention.
1.5.1.1. Pro: Many [students](https://www.theodysseyonline.com/green-university-important) have shown an interest for green campuses.
1.5.2. Pro: [Companies and activist groups](https://grist.org/article/green-u/) alike are trying to help universities become more green.
1.5.2.1. Pro: [General Electric and mtvU](https://grist.org/article/green-u/) recently launched an Ecomagination Challenge, with a $25,000 prize for the school proposing the most impactful and innovative project to make their campus more green.
1.5.2.1.1. Pro: This means the organizations join the [Campus Climate Challenge](https://grist.org/article/green-u/), an activist-led network of more than 300 schools promoting leadership on global warming.
1.6. Con: The [Kalven report](http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/kalverpt.pdf) was created for the explicit purpose of ensuring that the integrity of universities was maintained. Divesting would be a declaration of what is right and wrong, which is not within the purview of a university.
1.6.1. Con: [This isn't a social claim,](https://www.kialo.com/climate-change-is-widely-accepted-in-the-scientific-community-to-not-divest-is-to-stand-in-defiance-of-scientific-reason-28142.3?path=28142.0~28142.1_28142.3) but a scientific claim. Therefore the Kalven report doesn't apply.
1.6.2. Con: Climate change creates more freak weather and natural disasters. Without food, water, and shelter being secured, people will be unable to go to school. Thus climate change is a threat to the purpose of the university, the education of individuals and the pursuit of truth.
1.7. Pro: Climate change is widely accepted in the scientific community. To not divest is to stand in defiance of scientific reason and truth.
1.7.1. Pro: Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that [97% or more](https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/) of actively publishing climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate is warming.
1.8. Pro: Fossil fuel investment is immoral.
1.8.1. Pro: Investment in fossil fuel extractions is a recipe for an [ecological and humanitarian crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/mar/11/social-acceptability-morality-of-fossil-fuel-investment) which will harm innocent generations to come.
1.8.1.1. Pro: Climate change, caused in part by non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels, is causing [natural disasters](https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/climate-change-affects-poverty).
1.8.2. Pro: [Climate change](https://studybreaks.com/news-politics/college-atlantic-greenest-univeristy/) looms as arguably the most pressing national security issue facing both the United States and the world.
1.8.2.1. Pro: As a result, the world would start moving towards [sustainability](https://ensia.com/voices/7-reasons-the-world-will-be-sustainable/) too and hence its only fitting for universities to take the first steps.
1.8.3. Pro: Climate change is regressive in nature, i.e. the poorest people \(who contributed the least to it\) are affected the most by climate change. Inaction punishes the most innocent, and is therefore immoral.
1.8.3.1. Pro: [3 out of 4 people](https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/climate-change-affects-poverty) living in poverty rely on agriculture and natural resources to survive. Climate change will make their lives unimaginably harder.
1.8.3.1.1. Pro: Women are often [the hardest hit](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger), as they are the ones left to tend small farms and families, and have fewer alternative livelihoods when crops are lost.
1.8.3.2. Pro: [Water shortage](https://earth.stanford.edu/news/effects-climate-change-water-shortages#gs.s1l0qe) is experienced across the world due to climate change.
1.8.3.2.1. Pro: [Ethiopia](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) is suffering its worst drought for 30 years and the search for water has become more desperate.
1.8.3.2.1.1. Pro: [Women](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) walk for two to six hours a day just to get water, and people have to dig wells deeper and deeper to access water.
1.8.3.2.1.2. Pro: In Ethiopia alone [9.7 million people](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) are currently in need of emergency food aid.
1.8.3.2.1.2.1. Pro: People have no choice other than to cut down on the quantity and variety of the food they eat, leading to [malnutrition](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger).
1.8.3.2.1.2.2. Pro: Tragically, [children are the hardest hit](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger). In particular, climate change is intensifying the threat from the three biggest killers of children which are diarrhea, malnutrition, and malaria.
1.8.3.2.2. Pro: [Increased water scarcity](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) due to climate change reduces the capacity to produce food and its quality, which has serious implications for food security, nutrition and health.
1.8.3.3. Pro: The impact of global warming and extreme weather events will be higher in the developing world. Many climate impacts will be greater in the Tropics and [poor countries](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) are least able to adapt to the changes.
1.8.3.4. Pro: Climate change is [exacerbating hunger](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/climate-change-is-causing-hunger-in-some-of-the-worlds-poorest-countries-and-those-most-at-risk-are-the-least-to-blame/) in some of the poorest countries in the world by disrupting agriculture and food supplies.
1.8.3.4.1. Pro: Recently, [harvests and livelihoods](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) have faltered as drought has taken hold across equatorial regions.
1.8.3.4.1.1. Pro: Right now, [39 million people](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) in Southern Africa do not have enough to eat, after drought has devastated several cycles of crops. Without climate adaptation strategies suited to each reality, farmers, fisher folks and pastoralist communities face a difficult choice: to migrate in search of other livelihood opportunities or to stay and face hunger.
1.8.3.4.1.2. Pro: Even where food exists, [extreme events](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) can block main roads, railway tracks, harbors, and food cannot reach markets.
1.8.3.4.1.3. Pro: By 2030, 95% of maize and other coarse grains consumed in [sub-Saharan Africa](https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-things-you-need-know-about-climate-change-and-hunger) could come from the region itself, meaning that local climatic shocks are likely to have dramatic impacts on local production, prices, and ultimately on consumption.
1.8.3.5. Pro: Climate events like flooding, severe storms, and drought [leave millions](https://www.concernusa.org/story/top-causes-world-hunger/) of the world’s most vulnerable populations facing global hunger.
1.8.3.6. Pro: Climate change is a [barrier to education](https://www.concernusa.org/story/how-education-affects-poverty/) around the world, threatening attendance as well as school stability.
1.8.3.7. Pro: A [study](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/26/climate-change-will-hurt-poor-people-the-most-federal-report.html) found that low-income communities in both urban and rural areas will be disproportionately impacted by climate change relative to other communities, specifically with regard to their health.
1.9. Pro: Universities divesting would accelerate the trend of fossil fuels becoming an unpopular investment.
1.9.1. Pro: If more follow their example, fossil fuel's cost of capital will increase a lot, which will lead to projects at the margin not being profitable and thus fewer fossil fuel projects being started.
1.9.2. Pro: Divestment is intended to [stigmatise the industry](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work), leading less people to want to support such an industry, or even work in it.
1.9.2.1. Pro: The stigma surrounding the industry can [drive up the cost](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work?verso=true) of labour for companies as they have to work hard to try to entice people to work there.
1.10. Con: Fossil fuels have good economic returns, making them the most practical investment choice for universities.
1.10.1. Con: There is no lack of investors that invest in vices and do not care about the implications of their investments as long as the returns are good. Thus universities not investing in fossil fuels will not have much impact on fossil fuel related investments' cost of capital.
1.10.1.1. Pro: There are even special mutual funds, called [vice funds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Fund), that invest solely in goods deemed bad for society.
1.10.1.2. Con: According to a [study](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm), the Estimated Ratio for Energy Return on Investment \(EROI\) over a 16-year period is roughly 6:1, and by some estimates, as low as 3:1. This is about the same or lower than that of renewable energy.
1.10.2. Pro: Divestment from fossil fuels often involves substantial costs for universities.
1.10.2.1. Pro: This is because divesting in fossil fuels can cause universities to incur a [number of costs](http://divestmentfacts.com/pdf/Fischel_Report.pdf). These costs reduce the returns that a university makes annually \(p. 3\).
1.10.2.1.1. Pro: Studies suggest that universities that divest from fossil fuels can expect their returns to be as much as [70 basis points](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/divestment-campaigns.html) lower annually.
1.10.2.1.1.1. Pro: For a university such as Harvard, this can translate into a loss of more than [$250 million](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/divestment-campaigns.html) a year.
1.10.2.1.1.2. Pro: Studies suggest that lower returns can lead to universities [cutting employees](http://divestmentfacts.com/pdf/Fischel_Report.pdf) \(p. 4\).
1.10.2.1.2. Pro: This may reduce their ability to spend on things such as [scholarships and financial aid](http://divestmentfacts.com/pdf/Fischel_Report.pdf) \(p. 3\)
1.10.3. Con: Fossil fuels have in fact begun to decline, making them an irresponsible investment.
1.10.3.1. Pro: Renewable energy sources are projected to hit an [80%](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/09/10/green-power-set-surge-fossil-fuels-decline-report/) share of total power supply by 2050.
1.10.3.2. Con: The demand for coal, oil, and natural gas hit a record high in 2018.
1.10.3.2.1. Pro: In 2018, [70%](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/20/so-you-think-were-reducing-fossil-fuel-think-again/#1ef3636b52fb) of global demand for energy was provided by fossil fuel, and only 30% by renewables and nuclear.
1.10.4. Con: A new [research report](https://energyinnovation.org/publication/the-coal-cost-crossover/) from a clean-energy policy think tank found that solar and wind have become so cheap in the United States that it’s more cost-effective to immediately tear down and replace 74% of the country’s coal-fired power plants than to continue fueling them.
1.11. Con: Endowments are big and where money is invested can be very difficult to track. Divestment can be very difficult with commingling and mutual funds. To divest is impractical.
1.11.1. Pro: Universities can find it very expensive to divest from non renewable resources.
1.11.1.1. Pro: In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to [higher costs](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html) which can lead to higher tuition fee for students.
1.11.1.2. Pro: For some establishments, a common method of going green is to minimize or even eliminate the use of paper. This can pose some [disadvantages](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html).
1.11.1.2.1. Pro: For [example](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html), if employees lose or experience the theft of laptop computers, sensitive information that would normally be kept in a locked paper file could fall into the wrong hands.
1.11.1.2.2. Pro: If [universities](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-going-green-corporation-3318.html) do not properly back up their computer files, a system crash could prove disastrous.
1.11.2. Pro: [Environmental costs](https://hbr.org/1994/07/the-challenge-of-going-green) are skyrocketing at most places, with little chance of economic payback in sight.
1.11.3. Con: A [number of universities](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/08/fossil-fuel-divestment-a-brief-history) have already divested from fossil fuels, showing that it is entirely possible to do so.
1.11.3.1. Pro: The University of Edinburgh [has divested](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/06/edinburgh-university-divests-from-all-fossil-fuels) from all fossil fuels.
1.11.3.2. Pro: Glasgow University [divested](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/08/glasgow-becomes-first-university-in-europe-to-divest-from-fossil-fuels) from fossil fuels in 2014.
1.11.3.3. Pro: The [UC](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/divestment-fossil-fuel-university-of-california-climate-change) system is now divested from fossil fuels.
1.11.4. Con: The purpose of education institutions should be to educate students and not make profits.
1.11.4.1. Con: Without a well invested endowment, a university wouldn't have the fiscal foundation required to educate.
1.11.4.1.1. Pro: There are many other [economically sound investment options](https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2018/10/01/ethical-investments-higher-returns) apart from fossil fuels.
1.12. Con: Allowing outside entities to have a say in education is a dangerous precedent, even if those entities are student bodies or scientific communities.
1.12.1. Con: Society and the culture at any given moment has always had some influence on education and universities.
1.12.1.1. Pro: For example, there is more research being dedicated to sexual harassment, which is directly tied to the ongoing #metoo movement.
1.12.1.2. Pro: Universities regularly take contributions from individual members and groups.
1.12.1.2.1. Pro: MIT has recently come under pressure for the [$800,000 contribution](https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/universities-grapple-with-donor-behavior-66389) it received from Jeffrey Epstein.
1.12.1.2.2. Pro: In 2010, the London School of Economics \(LSE\) accepted a [contribution](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/universities-need-philanthropy-but-must-resist-hidden-agendas/) from the Gaddafi Foundation.
1.12.2. Pro: Taking official stances in support of certain groups or communities can [compromise a university's ability](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/opinion/sunday/divestment-campaigns.html) to be seen as a trusted educational institution that produces unbiased research.
1.12.2.1. Pro: As former Harvard President Drew Faust [argued](https://harvardpolitics.com/harvard/divestment-mimics-the-past/) in a 2013 letter about fossil fuel divestment, Harvard should be ''very wary of steps intended to instrumentalise our endowment in ways that would appear to position the university as a political actor rather than an academic institution.''
1.12.2.2. Pro: In order to remain a trusted educational institution, universities must [avoid giving priority](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/demanding-universities-to-divest-is-often-bad-policy/2015/03/27/1382fbe4-d401-11e4-ab77-9646eea6a4c7_story.html) to partisan or other political viewpoints. Divesting from fossil fuels gives certain views priority.
1.12.3. Con: Universities are supposed to cater to students. This involves responding to the reasonable needs and desires voiced by the student body.
1.12.3.1. Con: Universities aren't suppose to cater to students, but are supposed to educate them. If they need to invest in fossil fuels to educate them, then they should.
1.13. Con: Divestment often fails to produce any meaningful change, and instead may be counterproductive to general efforts to combat climate change.
1.13.1. Pro: Divestment campaigns [risk distracting](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work) from more directly effective activities.
1.13.1.1. Pro: If the environmentalist community focuses its time on divestment campaigns, they are [left with less time](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work) for other programs such as encouraging students to adopt life style changes with lower carbon footprints.
1.13.1.2. Pro: Attention surrounding divestment efforts can distract people from more effective activities that have been proven to work, like such as [funding technology companies](https://www.ft.com/content/21009e1c-d8c9-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17) that help cut emissions.
1.13.2. Pro: Even if socially responsible shareholders, such as universities, stop investing, these shares end up being [reallocated](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work) to more indifferent investors who don't share the university's moral scruples.
1.13.2.1. Pro: This means that the market price [stays the same](https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/does-divestment-work) and the company loses no money.
1.13.2.2. Con: This misses the larger point of divestment campaigns. The idea is not to starve companies of capital but to remove their '[social licence to operate](https://www.ft.com/content/21009e1c-d8c9-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17)'.
1.13.2.2.1. Pro: This makes it easier for governments to act on climate issues by [breaking fossil fuel companies' hold](https://www.ft.com/content/21009e1c-d8c9-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17) on politicians.
1.13.2.2.2. Pro: This is similar to the divestment campaign during the 1980s in South Africa, where the collapse of the apartheid system was [linked](https://www.ft.com/content/21009e1c-d8c9-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17) to the divestment movement.
1.13.2.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.9.2.